A question about Louisiana politicians

[j2k4]

Whose actions have been more deleterious to the voters of their constituencies-

Senator David Vitter, of whorehouse fame, or Congressman William Jefferson, the corrupt influence peddler?

You make the call. :)

[vidcc]

you first

[j2k4]

you first

Well, I tend to be sort of unforgiving of any of misbehavior in office, so I'd personally rather execute them both, but short of that, I'd say Jefferson's actions were more damaging to his constituency, as they involve an undeniable marginalization of representational interest.

Vitter's trespass was, as you and Busyman have said in the past with regard to other politicians, more personal and private.

I would not want to be in his shoes right now, given his wife's comments; never mind what the voters feel.

Now, don't try to tell me I haven't answered the question.

[Busyman™]

you first

Well, I tend to be sort of unforgiving of any of misbehavior in office, so I'd personally rather execute them both, but short of that, I'd say Jefferson's actions were more damaging to his constituency, as they involve an undeniable marginalization of representational interest.

Vitter's trespass was, as you and Busyman have said in the past with regard to other politicians, more personal and private.

I would not want to be in his shoes right now, given his wife's comments; never mind what the voters feel.

Now, don't try to tell me I haven't answered the question.

I think Will Jeff's was worse by a far margin.

I totally agree that Vitter's was personal and private.

However....Vitter is a victim of his own shit. His party and religious organizations affiliation should net him demonization by his party and religious affiliates.....

....or is that reserved for Democrats?

Oh with that last sentence of your 1st paragraph, apply it to Bill Clinton and the current President.

[vidcc]

So at the risk of sounding combative here, what is the point of this exercise?

A republican has been exposed as a bit of a hypocrite, so your reaction is to find a democrat that did (is accused of) something wrong and make a thread comparing "crimes"

[Busyman™]

So at the risk of sounding combative here, what is the point of this exercise?

A republican has been exposed as a bit of a hypocrite, so your reaction is to find a democrat that did (is accused of) something wrong and make a thread comparing "crimes"

Took the words right outta my mouth. I just addressed what he asked this time.

Jay, is partisan to a fault. It is almost sickening and definitely typical.

"Hey, in this case, whose worse, the Republican or the Democrat?"

Hmmm let me see.....

[vidcc]

Nancy Pelosi's "San Francisco left-wing values":


"Upon graduation in 1962, she married Georgetown University graduate Paul Pelosi." "Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, a native of San Francisco, have five children: Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul and Alexandra, and five grandchildren."


Newt Gingrich's "traditional American conservative social values":


In 1981, Newt dumped his first wife, Jackie Battley, for Marianne, wife number 2, while Jackie was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. Marianne and Newt divorced in December, 1999 after Marianne found out about Newt's long-running affair with Callista Bisek, his one-time congressional aide. Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother's Day, 1999. [Source: New York Post, July 18, 2000, Newt's Ex Wife Aiming to Pen Book by Bill Sanderson, available on lexis].
Newt (57) and Callista (34) were married in a private ceremony in a hotel courtyard in Alexandria, Va. in August, 2000. . . .

"He famously visited Jackie in the hospital where she was recovering from surgery for uterine cancer to discuss details of the divorce. He later resisted paying alimony and child support for his two daughters, causing a church to take up a collection. For all of his talk of religious faith and the importance of God, Gingrich left his congregation over the pastor's criticism of his divorce."
Oh and what was Newt tut tutting while having an affair himself?


No real point to this post, just a random imput

[Busyman™]

Nancy Pelosi's "San Francisco left-wing values":


"Upon graduation in 1962, she married Georgetown University graduate Paul Pelosi." "Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, a native of San Francisco, have five children: Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul and Alexandra, and five grandchildren."


Newt Gingrich's "traditional American conservative social values":


In 1981, Newt dumped his first wife, Jackie Battley, for Marianne, wife number 2, while Jackie was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. Marianne and Newt divorced in December, 1999 after Marianne found out about Newt's long-running affair with Callista Bisek, his one-time congressional aide. Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother's Day, 1999. [Source: New York Post, July 18, 2000, Newt's Ex Wife Aiming to Pen Book by Bill Sanderson, available on lexis].
Newt (57) and Callista (34) were married in a private ceremony in a hotel courtyard in Alexandria, Va. in August, 2000. . . .

"He famously visited Jackie in the hospital where she was recovering from surgery for uterine cancer to discuss details of the divorce. He later resisted paying alimony and child support for his two daughters, causing a church to take up a collection. For all of his talk of religious faith and the importance of God, Gingrich left his congregation over the pastor's criticism of his divorce."
Oh and what was Newt tut tutting while having an affair himself?


No real point to this post, just a random imput

The religious talk by many congressional members is a ploy to court the religious vote.

Fact.

[j2k4]

Did either of you read the title of the thread.

In point of fact, however, this thread was meant to point up the difference in how these stories have been treated by the media and viewed by such as yourselves.

You both seem to believe there is no value in comparing the two...I gather for both of you the fact of Vitter's hypocrisy is the operative factor in his trespass, which quality Jefferson escapes, having been thoughtful enough to have never campaigned against corruption.

Now-

Who is being partisan.

I will admit mine; it is, after all, why I am here.

What about the two of you - care to make other than the usual rhetorical case that you are "independent"?

The very idea is laughable.

[vidcc]

Did either of you read the title of the thread.

In point of fact, however, this thread was meant to point up the difference in how these stories have been treated by the media and viewed by such as yourselves.

I've re read it and nowhere do you mention the way the media treated either case. I even highlighted it in case you used invisible ink.

What you asked was who's actions have been "more deleterious to the voters of their constituencies"

Can you show that either has had an actual adverse affect on their constituents?

I'm not talking about the outrage of corruption itself, I am talking about the results of the corruption. Did the acts of either actually harm their constituents?

A lawmaker can be corrupt but that corruption may not affect the people he represents. In Jefferson's case it would have been overseas business deals, and in Vitter's case how would him having sex with a hooker in DC cause harm to those back in La other than outrage.




You both seem to believe there is no value in comparing the two...I gather for both of you the fact of Vitter's hypocrisy is the operative factor in his trespass, which quality Jefferson escapes, having been thoughtful enough to have never campaigned against corruption.
What purpose is served in comparing two apples and oranges examples other than to try to somehow deflect attention from the indiscretions of one of your boys.
Other than the state they represent what possible connection could there be?


Now-

Who is being partisan.

I will admit mine; it is, after all, why I am here.

What about the two of you - care to make other than the usual rhetorical case that you are "independent"?

The very idea is laughable.
So you are saying I am a partisan because when the Vitter story broke I didn't automatically jump to his defense because Jefferson is under investigation and from the same state?

Care to show anywhere on the forum where I have defended Jefferson?

My stand is clear on both. If Jefferson is convicted he should go to jail, otherwise the voters should decide.

With Vitter. If his supporters voted him in because of his "upstanding morals" then I guess they will feel betrayed. They have to decide what they value the most.
Can you show anywhere that I have said Vitter should resign because of this or even that he should face any consequences at all?
Now I did point out his own words that he thinks such indiscretions warrant resignation, but then those are his views, not mine.

[Busyman™]

Did either of you read the title of the thread.

In point of fact, however, this thread was meant to point up the difference in how these stories have been treated by the media and viewed by such as yourselves.

You both seem to believe there is no value in comparing the two...I gather for both of you the fact of Vitter's hypocrisy is the operative factor in his trespass, which quality Jefferson escapes, having been thoughtful enough to have never campaigned against corruption.

Now-

Who is being partisan.

I will admit mine; it is, after all, why I am here.

What about the two of you - care to make other than the usual rhetorical case that you are "independent"?

The very idea is laughable.

Yeah I read the title and honestly I never paid attention to the fact that they both are from the same state. Really.

My view of Vitter is the same as it was for Clinton. Again it's Viiter's own fault for how it looks.

I remember right after Ole Will Clint's debacle a handful of Repubs had to come out about their adulterous affairs.

If you yell loudly about something you look stupid when that something bites you in the ass.

You are a weird one. You are here to be partisan. What kind of geeky shit is that?

I've always thought that you phrase things and bring up shit....just to be partisan. Being independent minded is something totally foreign to you. There is no expansion of your mind because it is sheep-like.

It is also why any thread you put up is automatically looked upon as being partisan. I, for the most part, answer straight up.

My mind is not closed like yours.